Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

Maybe if TV was 100% public than I might agree with that, but it's not, and it is controled by the governement, and paid for by advertisers, and cable and dish subscribers. The key in that statement, which makes in non-relative to what I saying is "even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit"In my example there was no warning, and there continues to be no waring to things I find offesive for my kids on TV. It is perfectly reasonible, but not applicable to this discussion. They don't, but probably thanks to them, that is why there is signs before you enter.

That is the real question, and the movement from 30 years ago to today is pretty radical. Presumably there is a delay, where they can black out, or bleep, if necessary.

It's acting...brillant! thank you. Irrelavent reply. It is not legal to offend people, if you can't deal with that, then poo on you. Ok, maybe I am confised, but wasn't the test made in 1957?

quote:

---

Roth v. United States, case decided in 1957 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Samuel Roth of New York City was convicted of mailing obscene materials. On appeal his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that material is obscene if, to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant overall theme appeals to prurient interest. In later decisions in 1973 and 1974 the Court held that community standards need not be national; a state can establish its own standards if it defines them explicitly.

---

And to further what I am saying about obscenity:

quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957), issued a landmark ruling on obscenity and its relation to the First Amendment. The Court held that obscenity was not a protected form of expression and could be restricted by the states. In addition, the Court announced a test for courts to use in evaluating whether material was obscene.

​

The Court consolidated the appeals of Samuel Roth and David Alberts. Roth had been convicted of violating a federal statute (18 U.S.C.A. 1461) that made it a crime to mail obscene advertising and reading materials. Alberts, a California mail-order seller, was convicted for keeping obscene books in violation of California law. Both the federal and state courts of appeal had upheld their respective convictions.

​

The issue before the Court was clear: Was obscenity entitled to protection under the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press? Until Roth, the Court had largely ignored the constitutionality of obscenity statutes, creating the assumption that obscenity was not protected speech. Consequently, obscenity convictions were routinely upheld by the lower courts.

​

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in his majority opinion, reviewed the history of freedom of expression and concluded that not every type of utterance was protected in the thirteen original colonies. Libel, blasphemy, and profanity were among the statutory crimes. In addition, that every state and the federal government had obscenity statutes showed that the First Amendment "was not intended to protect every utterance." Obscenity is denied protection because it is "utterly without redeeming social importance."

​

Having ruled that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press, Brennan noted that sex in art and literature was not, by itself, obscene. Indeed, "sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life" had interested "mankind through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern." In the past, however, mere sexual content was enough to have a novel banned under the test courts used in assessing whether something was obscene.

​

For a legal definition of obscenity, U.S. courts looked to the English case of Regina v. Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868). The Hicklin test was "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." This test permitted prosecutors and judges to select objectionable words or passages without regard for the work as a whole and without respect to any artistic, literary, or scientific value the work might have.

​

Brennan rejected the Hicklin test as being "unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press." It was essential that the work as a whole be evaluated before being declared obscene. Brennan endorsed the test used in both Roth's and Alberts's trials: "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient [lewd or lustful] interest." The new test was applicable to both state and federal government obscenity prosecutions.

​

The Roth test did not settle the question of what is obscenity, however. In fact, the Court was drawn into a long-term inquiry over virtually every element of the new obscenity test. The Court has never reached full agreement on what constitutes an appeal to "prurient interest." The phrase "redeeming social importance" has also failed to generate a consensus. Nor, in the years immediately following Roth, could the Court agree on whether "community" referred to the nation as a whole or to individual states or localities.

---

It is my right to own and watch a TV. I do not need to stop watching because people using our governemnt regulated aurwaves are offending me. I hope an admin sees this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please Dan, don't call me a hypocrite, I despise it. I may be ignorant, or mis-informed, but above all I am not a hypocrite, not intentionally.
This is why I am discussing, as I stated in my first post, I may not be full aware of what I am advocating, but there are two facts here:
1. Children should not be seeing peoples heads blown off on public TV at such a young age, no person with half a brain should agree to that.
2. Something needs to be done about it, without interupting our freedoms.I retain my orginal thought, I am a middle man. If you express something that makes sense, and through discussion, I find out that it actually does make sense, then I will be all the smarter. I assure my intentions are good (on the way to hell)

Well and some shows, but I can always tell the kids not to watch them. Well boxing sure does, and guidence is needed there as well. "Professional wrestling" is prime time, after 9 TV, and I don't allow my kids to watch that crap either. No, I am not saying all content must adhere.
But if it is a childrens channel, there should be some rating. If you supply the knowledge to your daughter, thats fine, but think about the multitudes of children not receiving that same high level of care. uh...Beatles addict, that says it all right there, no doesn't it?
j/k I love the Beatles.

Where on earth did you get such a bizarre idea? Of course it's legal to offend people.Edited by Ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're mising his point, the acclaimed series Eliza Dushku Has Sex With Kristen Bell features Eliza Dushku having sex with Kristen Bell! No acting involved, just scorching hot girl on girl action, and since it's 100% real you'd have no objections to it right?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I don't even care if it is acting. But I stand on my God-given right to be offensive.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

All I said was that freedom of speech does not give you the right to offend people. Am I wrong in saying this?

---

YES!(as I've already said on this thread)Speech that doesn't offend anyone doesn't need protecting. Why would it ever need protecting if nobody objects to it in the first place?The first amendment exists to protect unpopular and offensive speech, no matter the subject. There are very few restrictions and they are very specific.

quote:

---

Maybe if TV was 100% public than I might agree with that, but it's not, and it is controled by the governement, and paid for by advertisers, and cable and dish subscribers.

---

Where is it written that all TV must be inoffensive to Riverrat's sensibilities?

quote:

---

The key in that statement, which makes in non-relative to what I saying is "even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit"

​

In my example there was no warning, and there continues to be no waring to things I find offesive for my kids on TV.

---

Are the ads running during prime time? If so, then you have warning.Are they running during a show that many adults watch? Then you have warning.I will also point out that it is not just ads that you have been referring to in this thread, but programming.If you wish to protect your children from any possibility of seeing anything that you may not want them to see, then you are completely free to turn the television off or not have one. It is all in what you think is more important for the wellbeing of your children. If you think that having the ability to watch basketball games in your home is more important than shielding your children from Desperate Housewives commercials, (or vice versa) then you make your choice.And part of the consequences of living in a free (and capitalist) country, rat, is that you may come into contact with things that will offend you.Your response is to try to silence or eliminate those things, seemingly oblivious to the fact that you have no right to make that descision for everybody else.TV does not exist for riverrat and riverrat alone.

I thought the answer was crystal clear in the passage from Cohen v. California that I quoted, but apparently it wasn't clear enough for you. Let me put it this way:The First Amendment gives you the right to offend people.Any questions?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

It is not legal to offend people

---

If this is true, why is Ann Coulter not in jail?

Not in my artistic vision, mister. But are you saying that acting is lying, and should therefore be censored? Fun. Oh, well you said it. I guess it must be the case. Sure it is. It's perfectly legal, for instance, to start a website called "God Hates Fags", despite that being offensive to a great number of people. Where did you get this crazy idea that it was illegal to offend people? You're extremely confused. Your own post said the Hicklin test was made in 1867. The case in which the US government said, "No, this isn't gonna work" was in 1957. There is a legal difference between indecency and obscenity, and by and large, porn does not legally qualify as obscenity. That's why you can watch porn without worry that the cops will bust down your door and arrest you.An ad for Desperate Houswives sure as shit doesn't qualify as obsecnity, and wouldn't, even if Teri Hatcher suddenly dropped her pants and started playing with a vibrator.So given that Teri Hatcher pleasuring herself on film is, in fact, protected speech, why does the FCC have the authority to stop it? Sure is. But it's not your right to like what's on it.And while we're on the subject, it's also your right to own a gun, and keep it in the house, fully loaded, with the safety off. But it would be stupid to do so with kids around.If you choose not to own a gun because you have kids, it doesn't take away your right to own a gun. It just means you've chosen to make your kids a priority. And a wise choice it would be, too. There you go bringing up government regulation again. Gonna explain why the FCC has the authority to censor content any time soon? Gosh, I hope I don't go to jail for offending you. I hear it's illegal.I'll bet the cops bust down my door any second now. So don't let them watch it. The easiest way do so, one which would place absolutely no demands on you as a parent, would be to not own a TV. Problem solved. By which, of course, you mean your nonexistent freedom to demand family-friendly programming, not the network's real-life freedom of speech.It's unfortunate that you don't like being called a hypocrite.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

So go walk up to your local police and curse him out.

Objecting to speech, and offending are two different things to me.

Well this just about sums up what I am talking about. It is the epitome of poor taste and unnecessary speech. Just like everyone is telling me in the thread, I can just turn it off, you my griend have just been turned off.